Two Debates and a Video: More Steps on the GOP's Path to Disaster

The last couple of weeks have been a strange but eventful stretch for the 2016 presidential campaign, and we seem to have reached yet another new low for the GOP.  Recent developments, even some that many may have seen as at least somewhat positive, have only made me sadder about the state of conservatism and the Republican party.

It seems like a long time ago, but the Vice Presidential debate took place less than two weeks ago.  It appeared that Mike Pence was widely thought to have “won.”  I would agree that he probably came across as more personable and less annoying than his opponent, largely because he engaged in fewer interruptions than Tim Kaine.  Pence also had some success putting Kaine on the defensive about various aspects of Hillary Clinton’s record and platform, and he did express at least some more traditional conservative views, which have been sorely lacking in this general election campaign.  Yet, I can’t actually praise Mike Pence’s performance, because so much of what he said did not reflect reality.  For one thing, most of the more typically Republican things that Pence said don’t match up with the positions Trump has taken, so it might be rather misleading to suggest to viewers that they would be the policies supported by a Trump administration.  Kaine frequently brought up various controversial Trump comments or proposals, saying he couldn’t believe Pence would defend them.  It’s understandable that Pence often chose to instead change the subject to something he’d rather discuss, but on multiple occasions he opted to just deny that Trump had actually made the statements or suggestions, even when they were quite public and well-documented from speeches, interviews, campaign events, etc.  How dare anyone suggest that Trump and his team have said positive things about Vladimir Putin?  Of course Trump knew about Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine and was actually asserting that such a thing wouldn’t happen again with Trump in charge.  There were plenty of other examples, as well, and Pence’s indignation as he tried to rewrite the history of this campaign was extremely exasperating.  Also, when asked to explain what should be done to better handle various troubling international security issues, Pence just said that a stronger America would be the answer, following his running mate’s lead of making broad promises without providing specifics about how they might be accomplished.  So, if Pence may have helped his ticket to some degree during the debate, he did so in large part by being vague, evasive, and either delusional or dishonest, reflecting the unfortunate spread of such tactics and characteristics from the nominee to others in the GOP.

Of course, any discussion of the VP debate faded into the background a couple of days later when the video of Donald Trump’s vulgar comments behind the scenes of an Access Hollywood appearance several years ago was released.  I can’t say that I was particularly surprised when I head about it, because I’ve been convinced for a long time that Trump is a man of exceedingly low character.  The reactions of various others to the tape were interesting, though.  There seemed to be quite a few commentators, even some who’ve been friendly to Trump, who felt that this new controversy had rendered him unelectable, but I wondered why they assumed this to be the case and thought we’d need to wait to see the impact.  It is certainly difficult to imagine past presidential candidates remaining viable after something like this, but voters have been letting Trump get away with outrageous things that they would never condone in other politicians throughout this campaign.  And, true to form, a great many of Trump’s supporters made it clear that they would be sticking with, or even defending, him in this case, as well.  Now, over a week later, it appears that even this video did not deliver a fatal blow to Donald Trump’s candidacy, but it did hurt him in the polls and even led quite a few Republicans to renounce support for him.  It struck me as particularly unfortunate that this episode might actually wind up spelling defeat for some of these other politicians instead of Trump, because it seems likely many of Trump’s overzealously devoted fans will refuse to vote for Republicans who have unendorsed or otherwise not supported Trump.  This might make the difference in competitive House and Senate races, and it’s another sad development that Republicans may now lose because they don’t want to be associated with blatantly immoral speech.

After the Access Hollywood comments became public, some conservatives even asked Donald Trump to step aside from the campaign and let someone else take over.  That’s a scenario I’d love to see, but, of course, Trump made clear that he wasn’t going anywhere.  Throughout last weekend, though, I did hold out hope that he might at least decide to skip Sunday’s debate, so that I would be spared from watching what promised to be an ugly spectacle.  Alas, he did show up, and, as expected, the debate was a pretty unpleasant event.  Naturally, Donald Trump and his fans thought that he won the debate.  I didn’t come to that conclusion, and, contrary to what The Donald has been claiming, plenty of poll results agree with me.  However, I will say that Trump did make much more of an effort this time to keep the focus on his preferred topics and talking points, and this made him seem somewhat less unprepared and out of place.  I still think that Donald Trump’s performance was very problematic and would have been considered disastrous for other candidates.  Trump once again was repeatedly sniffling loudly into the microphone, which is a small thing, but it seems notable from someone who has made a big deal of questioning his opponent’s health.  He also spent much of the time while Hillary Clinton was talking wandering around the stage or hovering behind her.  I don’t know if he was trying to be distracting or intimidating or if he just felt bored and restless, but I wouldn’t think this behavior would come across well to members of the general viewing public.  While Trump did manage to occasionally make a point about an actual policy issue, he still seems very out of his depth on matters of substance.  For example, listing some of the problems with Obamacare was a good start, but Trump still was very short on ideas of his own for a better policy, other than the elimination of “lines around the states” that we heard about in a memorable exchange with Marco Rubio during a primary debate.  Trump’s answers regarding foreign policy, exemplified on Sunday by his statements about Russia and the situation in Syria, also remain troubling.  He seems to almost reflexively defend Russia and to be unable to see that they and Iran are not on an anti-ISIS mission in Syria.  The controversy regarding Trump’s videotaped comments about women was obviously going to come up during the debate.  Trump may have started out by saying that he wasn’t proud of the things he’d said and was apologizing for them, but he also tried to immediately pivot to the idea that it was much more important to talk about terrorism and security.  Of course these are crucial topics, but there would be plenty of chances to talk about them in other segments of the debate.  In follow-up questions, moderator Anderson Cooper had to ask Trump three times whether he had actually done the things he’d described in his conversation with Billy Bush before Trump finally briefly said that he had not and again tried to change the subject.  Some have described Cooper’s questions as “a trap,” but I think they were entirely fair and reasonable.  Before and during the debate, Trump had been trying to downplay the statements in the video as just “locker room talk,” but this ignores the fact that it was talk in which Trump was saying that he had repeatedly engaged in unacceptable and abusive behavior.  Cooper was trying to get Trump to address this important issue, and he needed to be persistent because of Trump’s evasiveness.  To me, Trump’s overall response to this controversy has not been one that really conveys contrition or is likely to convince neutral observers that Trump really does, as he claims, respect women.

I’m sure that Trump’s fans loved the way he aggressively attacked Hillary Clinton and criticized the moderators in this debate, as well as his pre-debate press-conference with some of the women who’ve accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct, but I don’t know that these tactics will help him with the general public at large.  Trump said that Hillary would be in jail if he were president, referred to her as the devil, and said that she has “tremendous hate in her heart.”  (I’m not sure exactly where Donald Trump acquired the ability to discern what is in another person’s heart or whether he plans to use this skill in evaluating foreign leaders, potential advisors, cabinet members, etc.  Perhaps that’s a question for the next debate.)  To me, all of this rhetoric goes too far and is much more personally hostile than we’d expect from a candidate on stage with an opponent.  As a result, voters might dismiss Trump’s harsh criticisms as over-the-top rhetoric and could even come away with a more unfavorable opinion of Trump, not Clinton.  Trump complained about the moderators, saying that they were not giving him as much time to speak and making the debate “3 against 1” in Clinton’s favor.  While it might be safe to assume that the moderators are not fond of Trump, I’d say his criticisms were quite exaggerated.  The moderators did ask both candidates about matters they’d probably prefer to avoid and tried to keep both of them within time limits.  Especially since Trump criticized the moderating team for failing to bring up Hillary’s e-mails right after Martha Raddatz had asked her a question about that topic, many people may see his behavior as a whiny overreaction.

Now, Hillary Clinton did not have a fantastic night, either.  She seemed to want to deal with most of the things Trump threw at her by dismissing or ignoring them, and, while that might be the right idea generally, leaving some of these things unanswered might allow them to do more damage.  Time spent discussing her private e-mail server, her negative comments about some of Trump’s supporters, and the scandals of her husband’s presidency does not help her cause.  Clinton is certainly not my ideal candidate, so I naturally found plenty to disagree with in her answers, perhaps most notably her description of the considerations she’d use in choosing Supreme Court justices.  Her criteria didn’t seem to include knowledge of and faithfulness to the law and the Constitution, and she recited quite a list of liberal views she hopes the Court will either uphold or enact.  Still, I thought that she held her own during the debate, tried to connect with the audience members posing questions, and, overall, probably came across as a prepared and fairly reasonable candidate, especially in comparison to the still erratic and unconventional Trump.

There apparently can never be enough bizarre happenings in politics this year, and the week after the debate was a real doozy.  Several women came forward to allege that Donald Trump had, in fact, accosted them in the ways he described in his “locker room talk.”  He denied the accusations, but for some reason he also thought it was a good idea to call these women names and belittle their appearance, even though he’s been claiming that Hillary Clinton mistreated her husband’s accusers and using that as an indictment against her.  Despite all of the new scandalous allegations, Trump has still retained a great deal of his support, including from some (though not all) religious conservative leaders.  The way they’ve chosen to defend so many things that go against the values and behavioral standards they have long professed in order to justify their support of Trump is almost hard to believe.  Most Republican politicians are also still backing Trump to varying degrees, even if they don’t really want to talk about it.  House Speaker Paul Ryan told his fellow congressmen that he won’t campaign with or defend Donald Trump from now on, but he did not take back his endorsement of the GOP nominee.  Even so, Trump was not pleased, and he spent some time lashing out at Ryan, John McCain, and other Republicans he considers disloyal to him.  Some in Trump’s campaign even openly suggested that many of his supporters might vote only for him, not for other Republicans running for lower offices, in November, showing how little they truly care about the “team” or any real chance to enact any of their supposed agenda in Congress.  Trump also stated that, because he doesn’t  think he is getting sufficient support from the party, he now will feel free to toss off the “shackles’ and pursue his campaign to Make America Great Again the way he really wants.  Wow.  If Trump was restraining himself up to this point in the campaign, we should all be afraid of what might come next!  To sum everything up:  this whole political situation is a huge mess for Republicans, and speculation about the upcoming election results is a cause for apprehension.  Will Donald Trump deservedly lose, perhaps by a lot?  Will other Republicans, or even the whole party, be damaged by his takeover of the GOP and all that has gone on because of it this election cycle?  I guess we’ll find out some of the answers in a few weeks, but things look pretty bleak for conservatism and the Republican party right now.

Thoughts on the First Clinton/Trump Debate

The first presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump last Monday night was highly anticipated and watched by a very large number of viewers.  Many commentators have already weighed in with their opinions about how things went for the participants and what impact the event might have, but I’d like to add a few thoughts of my own.

After any political debate, I suppose that it’s understandable for people to want to discuss who “won,’ since we tend to focus on so many things as competitions and the eventual election will have a victor.  Determining the “winner” of a debate is not necessarily a straightforward proposition for multiple reasons.  Sometimes both candidates might objectively perform at about the same level, and supporters of each side will almost always claim that their guy or girl won,  no matter what happened.  Different observers also will use a variety of criteria to judge debate performances, as well.  Unfortunately, it seems to me that an evaluation of which candidate had the most memorable line or two, especially if it is critical of the opponent, often gets the most attention in deeming who had the most successful evening.  It would be nice if debates could be seen predominantly  as forums for the candidates to inform potential voters about their views on the issues instead, so that the person doing the best job of articulating sound policies would get the most credit, but that doesn’t seem likely to be the case anytime soon.

Ever since Donald Trump appeared in the first Republican primary debate, I’ve thought that his performances in these proceedings have continually shown that he does not belong anywhere near an important elected office, and last Monday’s showing was no different.  Obviously, many people disagree, or Trump wouldn’t be the Republican nominee and be competitive in general election polling.  Trump and his supporters have predictably, if not particularly rationally, claimed that he was the clear winner of his debate with Hillary, and even some who don’t share that belief have said they thought Trump may have won the early portion of the debate.  I wouldn’t say that, but I will agree that things went somewhat better for Trump early in the evening, as he was more able to stay in control and stick to his own preferred themes.  Even then, though, he was basically reiterating his stock complaints about the evils of trade deals and the lack of American “winning,” without sharing any specifics about his plans to make things better.  This did nothing to persuade me that Donald Trump should be President, but I expected that his fans and perhaps some potential supporters would appreciate his talk about the problems he sees in the country and his characterization of Hillary Clinton as part of the political class that has failed to solve them for a very long time.  In fact, I rather think that many would consider pretty perfect a debate in which Trump devoted all of his speaking time entirely to criticizing and insulting Clinton, Democrats, politicians in general, and other countries, but I’d prefer more concentration on substance from everyone involved.

As for Hillary Clinton, overall I thought that she acquitted herself well in Monday’s debate.  Especially after the first segment, where Trump had her on the defensive while attacking her for now agreeing with him about opposition to the TPP trade deal, she seemed to do a good job of remaining calm and focussed.  Clinton didn’t appear rattled or angry as Trump spent most of his time sending criticism and far-reaching blame her way, either personally or as some generalized representative of everyone who’s ever been part of the government.  She even joked about the way it seemed he’d blame her for everything that’s ever happened by the end of the night, and with the way Trump kept expanding the list of Hillary’s alleged failings, I really wouldn’t have been all that surprised had he eventually gotten around to accusing Clinton of causing the Great Depression, the Civil War, and the extinction of the dinosaurs.  So, I found her quip quite apt, but I would offer a couple of pieces of constructive advice.  While ignoring most of Trump’s attacks and sticking to her own points may well be a good idea generally, I do think that Clinton should be prepared to counter at least some of the criticisms clearly and briefly before continuing on to make her own case.  Also, while some of her die-hard supporters may think otherwise, I really don’t think it’s a good idea for Hillary to point to her lengthy testimony at the Congressional hearings on Benghazi as a demonstration of her stamina.  It’s probably best for her if voters think about that topic as little as possible.

Throughout the  debate, Donald Trump often avoided responding to the specific questions he was asked and seemed willing to offer only vague general goals or criticisms of those who’ve been in power rather than providing details of the way he proposes to Make America Great Again. While I wouldn’t agree with many of the policy proposals Hillary Clinton discussed on Monday, I do give her credit for making much more of an attempt than Donald Trump to actually answer the questions posed by the moderator and to tell the voters how she would intend to address matters should she be elected.  Of course, she also brought up a few side issues about Trump’s tax returns, business practices, and past insulting comments regarding women that he, notably, felt the need to defend rather than either ignore or deny.  Asserting that looking to make money on a housing crash is good business and that not paying taxes demonstrations smartness would almost certainly do serious harm to any other presidential candidate, but in Trump’s case, it’s entirely possible the public will either overlook these things or agree with Trump that they are points in his favor.  We’ll have to see.

Even when he was discussing issues, Donald Trump reinforced some of my concerns about him, as he once again talked about addressing the job situation by not letting companies leave and minimized the importance of our alliances with NATO and other countries.  Are we to believe that a Trump administration would protect the Constitution and freedom and make us safer by forcing businesses to do the president’s bidding and weakening our relationships with other nations?  I thought that one of Hillary Clinton’s strongest moments in the debate came when she made it a point to reassure our allies that the U.S. will uphold it’s international commitments, and this helped her to come across as a reasonable and plausible world leader.

In the end, I definitely thought that Hillary Clinton had a stronger showing in the debate by demonstrating both more command of substance and policy and an ability to maintain a calm demeanor under pressure.  Yet, Trump’s supporters have pretty consistently shown that they will stick with him no matter what, especially if they see him as fighting against the “establishment” of both parties and the media.  So, while I thought that Trump’s rambling, repetitive, and evasive answers, liberally peppered with boasting about his businesses and endorsements, added up to a pretty terrible performance, this may well not hurt him in the polls.  Actually, considering the success he had in the Republican primaries following a string of similarly awful debates, perhaps the voters will now be clamoring to crown Trump King for Life with near universal acclaim.  Sigh...  The only positive thing that I can say about the presidential election at this point is that at least it’s almost over...

So Much Evidence for Voters: Will They Keep Ignoring It?

As the primary season goes on, things seem to grow ever more discouraging, as thousands of voters in state after state cast their “Republican” presidential ballots for a party-switching, flip-flopping, self-centered billionaire with no serious qualifications for the office he seeks.  It seems that those supporting Donald Trump do not care what he says or does, what positions or policies he expresses or lacks, or what type of character he has.  For whatever reason, they have decided that he is their guy, and they will not be dissuaded.  We can desperately hope that this tendency will change and that there are enough other persuadable voters out there to turn the tide and allow another candidate to win the nomination, but I’m not at all confident.

For any members of the public who are actually paying attention and open to logic and reason in selecting a presidential candidate, the events and news of just the past week should have presented enough evidence to disqualify Donald Trump from consideration for the presidency.  After he won (sigh...) still more primaries on Tuesday he held a long press conference during which he once again boasted about himself and tried to give a falsely positive impression of the fate of several of his prior failed endeavors (steaks, a magazine, etc.)  A reporter has filed a criminal complaint alleging that, at the end of this event, she was handled roughly by Trump’s campaign manager, leaving her with bruises on her arm.  The response of the Trump campaign was to criticize the reporter and accuse her of making things up, but corroborating  evidence seems to support her story.

Thursday night’s debate was a much more subdued and serious affair than the last couple in the series, with the questions and answers focussing mainly on the policy ideas of the various candidates.  If Donald Trump were any other candidate, his performance should have been devastating to his electoral hopes, but I’m afraid that the bar is set so low for him that, because he even attempted to speak about issues, mainly refrained from insulting his opponents, and talked in a calmer tone than he often does, the debate may instead be seen as a demonstration that he can be “presidential” and therefore may actually help him with some viewers.  I can only hope that more people will have seen that his answers showed a lack of knowledge, principles, and honesty, and that they will reject him as a presidential candidate, because the debate made these deficiencies abundantly clear.

When Trump’s suggestions that he would impose or threaten to impose large tariffs on foreign goods was discussed, Ted Cruz explained that the result of such tariffs would be increases in prices for Americans, and Trump’s rather puzzling response was that then “we” would build factories in America to make the products instead.  (Who would be building them?  The government?)  Trump also said that he does not want to make changes to entitlement programs such as Social Security and that he would deal with the cost by cutting “waste, fraud, and abuse” and foreign aid.  When it was pointed out that those measures could only add up to a fraction of the amount needed to address the entitlement and debt crises, he made some vague comments about the country needing to make better deals.  This, of course, is Trump’s “solution” to a wide variety of issues, including foreign policy matters.  Regarding the Obama administration’s changes in our relationship with Cuba, Trump said that it was time for something different after so many years but that we should have gotten a good deal.  With Iran, too, he’d have negotiated a better deal.  Why does he say he’d be neutral between our allies in Israel and the Palestinians?  To try to facilitate a deal, if possible.  (And, no one should question his pro-Israel qualifications, because he has family members and friends who are Jewish.)  On issue after issue, Donald Trump showed no knowledge of or interest in the details, and rather than any lofty principle such as promotion of human rights, his policy suggestions, such as they are, are motivated by “the art of the deal.”

Donald Trump constantly changes his positions and either ignores or denies the things he’s said or done in the past.  In addition, he is the epitome of the “crony capitalism” and corruption that many of his own supporters say is such an egregious problem.  Just last week, for example, he said at the debate that different types of visa programs for foreign workers were needed, both because America needs to bring in highly skilled workers and because people in businesses like his can’t find American workers to fill their available positions.  This week, Trump’s newest take on the subject is that the visa programs are terrible and harmful to American workers and shouldn’t be available for people like him to use, but that, since they are available, of course he has to use them.  I really can’t understand why anyone takes this man seriously or why, when he reverses himself so many times, some people are willing to accept whichever version of his comments on an issue are closest to their own beliefs as the definitive one.  This example, though, is also another illustration of Donald Trump’s focus on himself.  Hiring illegal immigrants or foreign workers and having his clothing lines made overseas is fine for him, but if anyone else does these things, they’re ruining our country.  (So much so that Trump even made the supreme sacrifice of giving up Oreos because Nabisco moved some production to Mexico.)  Similarly, Trump says that politicians are bought and paid for by donors and claims that he knows this because of his own experiences donating to people in both parties to help himself and his business career.  On these issues of undue political influence and of importing foreign workers, Trump claimed on Thursday night that he was the one who could fix these systems because he knows them so well.  I suppose some might see this as making some sense, but I strongly disagree and think it really takes a lot of nerve for a candidate to try to turn participation in what he himself is deeming destructive behavior into a job qualification for the presidency.

Since Donald Trump has said that it is important to be flexible in order to get things done, he was asked in the debate about the issues to which he might apply such flexibility, and his answer was that it “depends what comes up.”  I don’t think this is particularly surprising, and, since he has changed his tune multiple times on most issues, not just over the years, but also during this campaign, I never would expect Trump to stick to any consistent policy position.  One wonders, though, why voters who do support him aren’t bothered by this.  Do they just ignore all of the evidence, including his own vows to be flexible, compromise, and make deals with people in Washington, to convince themselves that he’ll do the things they want him to do?  Are they as “flexible” on everything as he is?  Are they just inexplicably trusting that the great and powerful Trump’s eventual decisions will be the right ones, whatever they may be??

Trump clearly has a habit of saying whatever he thinks is necessary for advantage at a given moment, without regard for the truth or his prior statements.  At the debate, he was asked about past remarks he has made regarding the “strong” leadership of people like Vladimir Putin and those in the Chinese government who crushed the protest in Tiananmen Square, and he claimed that his use of the term “strong” didn’t mean that he was saying something good about these figures.  While I won’t suggest that Trump’s earlier comments actually expressed approval of all of the actions of Putin or the Chinese government, I think that everything we’ve seen and heard from him makes it clear that calling someone “strong” is indeed a positive appraisal from him.  And since, even in this context, Trump contrasted the strength of these foreign leaders with the lack of it he sees in our country, I don’t see how his answers on Thursday would do anything to diminish the concerns people have about his views of authoritarian figures in government.

Donald Trump was also asked about some violent incidents that have taken place at his campaign events recently and whether he thought he’d done anything to foster a climate that would make such things more likely.  Trump said that he hoped he hadn’t, but the moderator then read just a selection of quotes in which Trump had said he’d like to punch a protester in the face, suggested that the crowd should rough someone up and that he’d pay their legal fees if they did, and so on.  At that point, Trump briefly said something about some really “bad dudes” causing trouble at his rallies and then changed the subject to praising the police for providing security at his events and elsewhere -- an obvious attempt at distraction which still got some approval from the audience.   The comments that Trump has been making at his rallies may have been intended as just “tough guy” schtick, but he didn’t stop after physical altercations actually started taking place.  In any case, violence isn’t something to joke about, and voters shouldn’t reward a candidate who talks this way.

I must comment on the theme of Trump’s opening and closing statements.  He urged Republicans to embrace his candidacy and the dedicated support he has, claiming that he is bringing in many new voters to Republican primaries and caucuses.  Personally, I’m not  convinced of the wonderfulness of this alleged phenomenon, but that’s a topic for another time.  I did think it was amazingly bizarre, though, to hear Trump say that all of these newcomers love the Republican Party.  Huh?  One of the predominant characteristics of the movement to support Trump is distrust of and even hostility toward the Republican party, with many people even thinking that it would be a good thing if this campaign causes the destruction of the party as we’ve known it!  Anyone who really does love the party or the conservative movement should absolutely not  fall in line and meekly accept Trump as the Republican standard-bearer.

It seems that there is always more to say about the reasons Donald Trump should not be president, but I’ll move on for now to the other candidates for just a bit.  In Thursday’s debate, I’d say that all three of Trump’s opponents demonstrated that they are far more qualified than he is.  Senator Cruz had a good night, although I do think that he should not have just ignored Trump’s blunt assertions that Cruz had changed his position on ethanol and supported amnesty.  Cruz kept making the point that Trump does not offer real solutions for the problems the country faces, and in contrast, listed many of the things he would intend to do as president.   Cruz also took issue with Trump asking voters to pledge their support to him, saying that the candidates should instead be making commitments to support the people, which I thought was an effective point.  As for Marco Rubio, I thought that he did a great job in his hometown debate.  (Actually, I think that he did quite well in all of the debates, with just a few unfortunate minutes in New Hampshire and perhaps a bit too much cross-talk in Detroit when he was ill.)  Rubio pointed out problems with Trump’s approach to various matters, including Social Security and generalized statements about Islam, and offered his own plans and vision for America’s future.  Rubio also shared some personal stories and showed that he, unlike Trump, has detailed knowledge of issues, such as the history and status of the U.S. relationship with Cuba.  In response to a comment from Donald Trump, he also memorably stated that he is not interested in being “politically correct,” but he does want to be “correct.”  Senator Rubio has been in a very tough stretch lately (prompting me to share a defense of him last week,) so I was glad to see him shine under pressure on Thursday.

Commentary about these debates tends to be very contradictory and must be quite confusing for the candidates.  Many people said that the debate in Detroit was an embarrassment and lamented the negative tone of the campaign and the conflicts taking place among the candidates on stage, so, in Miami, there was an obvious effort to have more order and civility in the debate.  As a result, not only did many seem to find that things were rather boring, but some conservative commentators were frustrated that those pursuing Trump did not challenge him more often and directly.  So, one week the message is, “Oh, it’s so terrible that candidates are attacking each other during the debates!” and the next week it is, “Why didn’t those candidates attack the frontrunner?  They’re just letting him coast to victory!”  I’m all for the challengers taking on Trump, and I didn’t think the previous debates were as problematic as many others did, but what did anyone expect the candidates to do after receiving so much criticism last week?  Trump’s  opponents did challenge him about policy issues and statements that came up in the debate, which is probably all they really could do under the circumstances.  That really should be enough to show voters interested in substance that Trump should not be their choice, but I fear more forceful criticism of Trump and his record may have been necessary to even have a chance of overcoming the advantages he has in delegates, polling, and media coverage in this race.

Events that took place over the weekend, particularly the Chicago Trump rally canceled due to large numbers of protesters and the discussions this precipitated, may have a serious impact on the rest of the primary campaign.  I’d like to discuss some of these another time, but I hope that they don’t overcome thoughtful consideration of issues and qualifications (to whatever extent that is actually taking place) and tip things even more toward Donald Trump as we head into an extremely important election day on Tuesday.  What happens in Florida, Ohio, and the other states voting this week will play a huge part in determining the direction of the race going forward.  Starting Wednesday, I expect there may be plenty of reasons to reassess the situation, and I’ll share some more thoughts about different candidates and possible outcomes after that time.  For now, I can only hope and pray that the people in the upcoming primary states will suddenly realize that they should not vote for an unqualified, inconsistent, deceitful candidate whose primary concern is himself, and that they will instead help bring about the nomination of one of the superior remaining conservative candidates.  In all honesty, though, I’m afraid that it feels like we are just biding our time until the next round of depressing election results.  Please prove me wrong, America -- you still have the chance!

In Defense of Marco Rubio

While the past week was a pretty good one for Ted Cruz and (unfortunately) Donald Trump, this was quite a rough stretch for Marco Rubio.  Among other difficulties, during this time, he was seen to have a less than successful Super Tuesday, was blamed for contributing to the deterioration in the level of discourse in the race, was thought not to have performed strongly enough in the latest debate, and was encouraged by his opponents to leave the race after receiving very disappointing vote totals in all four of the contests on Saturday.  Ouch!  While things obviously could have gone better for Rubio, I think that some of the media coverage and some of the negative conclusions being drawn about him and the way his campaign is going might not be fully straightforward or accurate. 

Although Senator Rubio is my preferred candidate, I may have been a little tough on him here over the last couple of weeks, as I shared some constructive criticism.  So, I think I owe it to him to offer a little defense and encouragement now, and I’d like to start by taking a look at some of the events and topics that were important over the last week.

Super Tuesday

The week before Super Tuesday, polls did not look good for Senator Rubio.  In the last few days ahead of those contests, Rubio launched his aggressive new campaign to “unmask” Trump as a “con man.”  On Tuesday, Rubio’s results in the elections were considerably better than would have been predicted from the polls.  He was able to win Minnesota, come very close in Virginia, and be more competitive in other places as well.  Even though, going into Tuesday, Rubio had not been saying that he would win a bunch of states, but only that he expected to do well and pick up a sizable number of delegates, which he did, the focus of media coverage was on his lack of victories, especially because the contest he did win was decided later in the evening.  It’s understandable for the media to focus on the winners of the elections, but it seems that doing so didn’t necessarily reflect the progress that Rubio had made in gaining momentum and securing delegates, especially in a collection of states thought to be generally more favorable to other candidates.

Decorum (or lack thereof) in the Campaign

For a few days following the Texas debate, in addition to directing serious criticisms at Donald Trump, Senator Rubio also tossed a few comic insults into his remarks in answer to the way Trump tends to treat those with whom he interacts, and these drew significant media coverage.  Since then, it seems that most interviewers have wanted to ask Rubio why he chose to engage with Trump in insults and immature comments and whether he regrets doing so.  Some in the general and the conservative media have attributed responsibility to him along with Trump for the level of unseemliness to which this presidential campaign has sunk.  Now, I said last week that I thought Rubio needed to be careful about the personal insults to Trump and that he really shouldn’t have said a few of the things he did, but I think it is incredibly unfair to lump him in with Trump, as some seem to be doing, in terms of crude discourse and insults, etc.  The handful of jokes Rubio made over a few days hardly compare to Trump’s frequent attacks against opponents and many others throughout his entire campaign.  Also, some people seem to categorize every criticism of Trump as a personal attack, and I don’t think that is correct either.  For example, Rubio’s contention that Trump is attempting to con people into voting for him by presenting himself as something he is not is actually a real attempt to explain to voters why they should not trust Donald Trump or reward him with their votes.  In the past, conservatives have had an unfortunate tendency to quickly abandon like-minded politicians over the slightest perceived misstep, and I’m afraid there may be a bit of that happening in this situation, as well.

Detroit Debate 

At Thursday’s debate, Rubio had the misfortune of a hoarse voice (and an illness), which limited his ability to participate and be heard in exchanges with Donald Trump.  To me, while he was more serious and low key than on some other occasions, he still did a good job overall in the debate, challenging Trump once again about Trump University, a lack of interest in substantive policy, and so on, while also giving his own views about the dangers facing the world, the importance of the second amendment, etc.  Plus, his yoga jokes in response to a Trump/Cruz “conversation” were genuinely funny.  Some commenters thought that his performance wasn’t strong enough, though, and that perception can’t be helpful to him.

Related to the previous topic, it rather seems that Senator Rubio can’t win with his observers and critics.  In the past, when he has largely refrained from confronting other candidates on stage, this was noted as a weakness and deficiency in trying to win the primary, as he didn’t have a “killer instinct.”  When he recently took on Trump more forcefully and with a few humorous jabs, he was accused of helping bring the campaign’s tone down to an unacceptable level.  Now, when I would say he returned to a more restrained manner during the Detroit debate, he was described as flat or lackluster by some.  What is a candidate to do?  I guess this once again goes to show it would be best just to be yourself because you really can’t please all of the others offering their often fickle or contradictory commentary on your choices.  Of course, I may have been watching a completely different debate than others saw, because I was thoroughly confused when I read a piece that said Rubio had “climbed down into the mud pit to fight with Trump.”  I didn’t see that in this debate at all.  In fact, I thought Rubio seemed to be making a specific effort to keep things substantive most of the night.  If a few instances of trying to talk over Trump (a not uncommon occurrence in any of the debates), discussing things unfavorable to Trump (such as Trump University, making clothes outside the US, hiring foreign workers, etc.), and calling him “Big Don” in response to yet another “Little Marco” wisecrack constitute a dirty fight, I think we either need a new rule book or we may as well just tell the other candidates they need to just keep quiet and salute Donald Trump’s unimpeded march to the nomination.

Super Saturday (When did they start calling it that, by the way?)

Ted Cruz and Donald Trump each won two of the elections held on Saturday, and Donald Trump, for some reason, felt the need to call for Marco Rubio to exit the race.  I don’t know why Trump cares who else is still running, since, as he constantly reminds us, he is winning.  While Saturday’s states weren’t really expected to be strong ones for Rubio, it was rather surprising and disappointing to see that he didn’t even come close in any of them, receiving vote totals well below twenty percent and even finishing in fourth place in Maine.  Some commentary, including at National Review Online, included speculation about what it might be that had happened to hurt him so much at the voting booth:  the tone he’d taken toward Trump, his last debate performance, Trump belittling him, or something else.  There is no way to know what might influence voters, especially with the choices many have been making these days, but it seems to me that some of the suggested factors shouldn’t have led lots of voters to abandon Marco Rubio.  As I said earlier, I don’t think Rubio actually had a bad debate, although Ted Cruz probably had a better one, but some poor reviews can shape the public’s perceptions.  As for the “tone” issue, would the problem be a delayed negative reaction to the heckling from the previous week or a feeling that the rough treatment of Trump should have continued?  After a little more thought, I suppose that it is possible the (exaggerated, in my view) criticism and questions being directed in the media at Rubio for his brief foray into insulting rhetoric could have negatively impacted some people’s opinions of him, even if they didn’t have a problem with his actions before, but I hope this is not true for many and is not a long-lasting effect.  (On a side-note, I will admit that I sometimes wonder if the mainstream media may be more anxious to promote negative storylines about Rubio than objectivity and perspective might warrant.  He may not be a favorite to win the Republican nomination right now, but Democrats and their allies may well see him as a tough opponent to face in a general election.  As a result, I think they’d be all too happy if a few extra stories about his trouble with Chris Christie in the New Hampshire debate or people’s concerns about the tenor of campaign rhetoric could help to make sure that never happens.)

I’m still not sure how much weight to give the theories above, though.  After all, the same day these contests took place, Senator Rubio received a very warm and enthusiastic reception during his appearance at the CPAC convention.  Would that crowd still have embraced him that way if something had made many people in different parts of the country suddenly decide he was unworthy of their votes?  I’m certainly no expert political analyst, but I’ve wondered if some other forces might be at work.  Last week saw much discussion about the urgent need to stop Donald Trump from getting the nomination.  As many have said, by this point in most primary seasons, voters would be flocking to the frontrunner, but this isn’t happening this year because so many are opposed to Donald Trump.  Isn’t it possible that some voters have decided it’s time to rally around the acceptable, conservative, sane candidate with the most delegates at this point, and therefore voted for Ted Cruz?  This obviously would be terrible news for Rubio’s campaign prospects, but it would not reflect any glaring shortcoming on his part or indicate that voters are rejecting him personally or on merit.  Similarly, couldn’t a good number of voters also have decided to follow the suggestion offered by Mitt Romney and others to vote for whichever non-Trump candidate had the best chance to win a particular state, in these cases leading some who might otherwise have chosen Rubio to back Cruz instead?  I did read an article that touched on this latter possibility, but some of what it said concerned me quite a bit, as it mentioned some voters in the hugely important winner-take all state of Florida who, after seeing Rubio’s low vote totals this weekend, were thinking his chances of winning were not good and were considering shifting their votes to Cruz.  Since Cruz has been well behind Rubio in polling in Florida, decisions such as this from a group of voters would likely just make it far easier for Donald Trump to beat both Senators and scoop up Florida’s 99 delegates, which would certainly not be good for the anti-Trump effort.  I would say that, if any significant number of people are going to engage in strategic state-by-state voting to secure wins by non-Trump candidates, which might best be used in the winner-take-all states, those who can disseminate information definitely need to make sure that voters have relevant news about candidates most likely to succeed in each state.  Voters also need to be aware that such a strategy means that candidates who do not win a particular state will wind up losing by larger margins than they otherwise would.  So, observers of a day’s primary results won’t be able to make the types of judgments that might usually be formed about candidates gaining or losing momentum or their prospects in future contests with much accuracy.  With all of these things considered, I hope that voters inclined to support Marco Rubio will not give up on him yet, especially in his home state of Florida, where I’m sure a win would be particularly meaningful to him while also keeping a large number of delegates away from Donald Trump. 

Some Bright Spots

Even during a tough week, there were still some bright spots for Senator Rubio.  On Sunday, he won the Puerto Rico primary, securing all of the available delegates.  Also, as mentioned earlier, Rubio’s presentation at CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference) on Saturday was very well received, and deservedly so.  Watching the video of his speech reminded me once again of the reasons I liked him in the first place, and I would encourage those of you who haven’t already seen it to watch it here.

The current political climate and the unusual way the primary race has developed this year make it a steep uphill climb for Marco Rubio as he continues his quest for the nomination.  This may turn out to be someone else’s year, and, in that case, if he should be asked to serve the country in another capacity, such as Vice President or a Cabinet position, I hope that he will give it serious consideration, as I think he could be a very valuable member of an administration (not headed by Donald Trump, of course!)  Whatever happens, I would encourage the American public to look past the day to day sensational details of the campaign to see Marco Rubio’s good qualities, serious proposals, and optimistic outlook.  At his best, Senator Rubio has the ability to share inspiring messages about conservatism and America in a very personable and positive way, and that’s one of the reasons his supporters believe he would be such a good choice to be the Republican nominee for President of the United States.

Note:  This is the second of two posts about the campaign this week.  The first may be found here.

Approaching the Precipice

Well, it’s been another all too interesting week in the bizarre world of Republican presidential primary politics.  Much has happened, with the Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses, yet another debate, and still more elections on Saturday, and I’ve had mixed reactions to many of these things.  Overall, I think that we have moved ever closer to crowning Donald J. Trump as king (oh, sorry, I meant nominee) of the Republican party, something which should fill reasonable people with dread.  I do see a couple of glimmers of hope that might indicate there is a chance, however slim, of a different result, but that may be wishful thinking.  Beyond that, though, I’ve found some of the week’s events and the reactions to them terribly discouraging in thinking about our society as a whole.

I may return to this point, but I think it’s important to look at some of these things in the proper perspective.  For example, looked at on their own, the Super Tuesday results were pretty bad for those of us opposed to Trump, since he won 7 of 11 states.  However, not that long ago, there was speculation that he might actually sweep all of the contests in dominating fashion.  Instead, Ted Cruz won his home state of Texas by a comfortable margin and also gained victories in Oklahoma and Alaska.  Marco Rubio was able to win in Minnesota, and the results in some other states were quite close.  (Sigh... If only Trump could have been defeated in those, as well...)  As a result, while Trump obviously got good press for so many wins, his challengers picked up a lot of delegates, too, and he is not in as commanding a position in the race as he might have been.  So, there is some reason to think the recently increased efforts to combat Trump may have made a difference and to hope it is still possible for someone else to wind up winning the nomination, but it is still a long shot.

During the week, there was increasing talk about possible scenarios that could defeat Donald Trump and about the growing number of Republicans saying they could never support him, even if he is the party’s nominee.  It’s terrible that we are even facing this prospect, and it would be nice if more people had fought to prevent Trump’s success long ago, but I’m still glad that many people are not just accepting and rallying around the frontrunner.  On Thursday, Mitt Romney gave a speech listing many of the reasons Donald Trump should not be president and expressing hope that Republicans will yet choose another nominee.  I need no convincing on these matters, of course, but I think Romney made many good points.  Unfortunately, I don’t know how many people would be persuaded by his remarks, since the people disposed to support Trump are also likely to dismiss Romney as just part of the “establishment” and, as Trump does, as a “loser.”  As a side note, I’d just like to say that I think Romney has been treated rather unfairly by many on the right, and it’s my opinion that one of the reasons he lost to Obama was the failure of Republicans and conservatives to have his back at different points during the campaign.  It’s interesting, as well, that many of those who found Romney to be an unsuitable Republican nominee because of an insufficiently conservative past record, changes of position, etc. or who didn’t like him because he was an unrelatable rich businessman are now perfectly happy to support Donald Trump, even though all of these factors apply to Trump to a much greater degree.  Of course, Romney, who was seen as too boring and polite, is also a good person, while Trump, the supposedly entertaining “fighter,” is not, and I think it’s a shame that so many people seem to prefer the current candidate to the former.

I gather that many people found Thursday night’s debate to be a particular lowlight for the entire Republican party, but I just saw it as yet another occasion on which Donald Trump showed once again why he is so obviously unfit to be president.  In addition to bringing his vulgarity to a new low, he also put on a dizzying display of inconsistency, egotism, shallowness, and dishonesty.  Regarding temporary visas for high-skilled foreign workers, he declared that he was changing his position from the opposition stated on his campaign website because “we need highly skilled people in this country,” a view he’d also expressed in one of the early debates last year.  Later that night, his campaign put out another statement retracting the earlier position reversal and taking a tough line about visas and their abuse.  (It must be difficult for his staff and advisors to keep track of Mr. Trump’s ever-shifting positions on various issues and to try to clean up after he makes so many problematic statements, but I can’t say that I have any sympathy for those choosing to work for his campaign.)  When asked about an off the record interview he did with the New York Times editorial board, rumored to contain material that might call his tough campaign immigration pronouncements into question, he said that he wouldn’t ask the paper to release the tape of the session, but he did express, more than once, the need for flexibility on different positions, including his supposedly signature issue of immigration, in order to get things done.  Trump’s answers continued to be nearly free of policy and knowledge.  When he was asked to discuss important things like foreign policy or the Supreme Court, his main response was to call his opponents names like “Little Marco” or “Lying Ted.”  The only things he seemed to want to discuss in detail were his numbers in various polls -- but, naturally, not the ones showing him losing to Hillary Clinton in the general election.  In addition to trying to explain away contradictory statements made during the campaign and shown in video clips by the moderators, Trump continued to lie outright about multiple topics from the poor Better Business Bureau rating received by Trump University to denying he’d said positive things about Vladimir Putin.  His arrogance knows no bounds, as he claimed that he deserved sole credit for increasing participation in Republican primaries and declared that the military would not refuse to follow orders he would give, even those related to his stated (illegal) intention to kill family members of suspected terrorists.  (Once again, the day after the debate, we heard a different tune in a release from Trump’s campaign, saying that he wouldn’t issue orders that would violate international law, etc., but, since he’s been sticking to the opposite position for months, I see no reason to accept a reversal now as resolving the issue and making everything OK.)  In summary, Trump presented anyone paying the least bit of attention overwhelming evidence that should disqualify him from consideration for their vote, but the really sad thing is the (probably true) assumption many of us have that, for a very large group of people who support him, none of this will make any difference whatsoever, and he will remain the overwhelming frontrunner in the race.  What does that say about American society today?  Nothing good.

I wouldn’t criticize the overall debate performances of the other candidates, and I appreciated that Senators Cruz and Rubio once again challenged Trump and avoided attacking each other.  It was definitely not pleasing to hear all of Trump’s opponents say that, in the end, they would support him if he does become the nominee, but it wasn’t unexpected.  After all, as Cruz said, they all pledged months ago to support the eventual nominee.  I thought this was unwise at the time, and I think there has to be some point at which such a promise is not the highest consideration, but I won’t hold it against Trump’s challengers now.

Four more states held their caucuses or primaries on Saturday, and the results held both good and bad news.  I consider it a positive any time Donald Trump does not win a state, so I was glad to see that Ted Cruz won in Kansas and Maine.  On the negative side, though, Trump still did win in Louisiana and Kentucky, giving him more things to brag about.  Also, while it’s encouraging that Trump won his states by a margin of only a few points, it is also troubling that he did receive over 40 percent of the vote.  (I guess anti-Trumpers may need to adjust the claim that 65% or more of Republican voters don’t want him as the nominee...)  His level of support seems to actually be increasing, at least in some places, and he is still winning states even as he continues to say and do outrageous things that would not have been accepted from any other candidates in the past, and despite accelerated attempts to make the case against him to the voters.  Again, I’m afraid this does not speak well of the public right now.

Each upcoming primary will play an important part in either bringing us ever closer to the dangerous brink of a Donald Trump nomination or keeping the possibility of a far better outcome alive.  There are a few more contests this week, before the stakes get even higher on March 15 with large states each awarding all of their delegates to the winners.  As long as there is still a chance that Trump can be stopped, I’ll hold out hope that his opponents will work as hard as they can to defeat him and that voters will realize he is not the person who should be president.  The situation does look bad now, but if things had gone more as predicted this past week, it could have been even worse.  I don’t think anyone knows what will happen next, but it does seem clear that those of us distressed by the Trump phenomenon won’t be able to rest easy any time soon.

Note:  I’m splitting my comments this week into two separate, but somewhat related, posts.  The second post is now  available here.

Desperate Times, Desperate Measures

Well, in the last week or so, there have definitely been quite a few noteworthy developments in the Republican presidential primary race.  These recent events have led me to a couple of conclusions, one definite and the other hopefully premature.  First, I can at least say that the apprehension I’ve felt about the contest for many months was not unwarranted.  That’s small consolation, though, because, if I were a stock character in a comic strip or cartoon right  now, I’d be the person walking around with a sign proclaiming that “The End is Near!”  Things do not look at all good for those of us horrified by the prospect of Donald Trump as the Republican nominee, and I’m almost to the point of resigned despair.  Even though only four states have voted so far, it seems that a result other than a Trump victory will require a near-miraculous turnaround -- picture, for example, your favorite baseball team being down 15-0 after the first few innings while facing an opponent with a pitching staff on a winning streak and an approaching rainstorm that threatens to cut the game short.  While it’s possible your team could pull out an improbable win as long as the game continues, it’s certainly not something you can expect is likely to happen.

Why has my pessimism increased so much as February has gone on?  Donald Trump, who, to my mind, no sensible person would consider a suitable president for one second, has now won three primary/caucus elections in a row, all by very large margins.  According to polls, he did very well in those states among many different subsets of the electorate, including people describing themselves as evangelical or even as “very conservative”.  Now, in some of those cases, if the voters are not playing games with the data collectors to make their guy look even more widely appealing than he (bizarrely) is, I think they are rather confused in their self-perceptions -- there is nothing “very conservative” about Mr. Trump.  In Nevada, Trump’s percentage of the vote was up to 46%, which was not only more than his two closest competitors (Senators Rubio and Cruz) received together, but was also getting perilously close to the 50% mark.  I understand that Nevada has a rather chaotic and unusual caucus process and does seem like a state particularly suited to support a TV-star/casino businessman with a rather glitzy persona, but these numbers are still very troubling.

How long will we be able to even cling for minimal comfort to the notion that a majority of the primary voters want someone other than Trump, so that, in theory at least, another candidate could win if this majority were to consolidate its support behind one non-Trump choice?  Donald Trump has been leading in the polls in many of the upcoming states already, and it seems that candidates who win early primaries usually gain even more support in later contests, as voters may be influenced to prefer the frontrunner by the positive coverage of him winning and giving victory speeches, may want to get on the bandwagon of the likely winner, or may think it’s in the best interest of their party for the general election if the eventual nominee has early and convincing support in the primaries.  It is also not necessarily the case that everyone who prefers another candidate now is also actually against Trump.  Some may have him as a second choice or be just fine with him being the nominee, so he would most likely gain some of the votes if the field should narrow at some point.  Add to these factors the apparently immovable support many of Trump’s fans have for him, as they are not deterred from championing him no matter what he says or does, and the unfortunate tendency the other candidates have had to largely avoid confronting or criticizing Trump while beating up on each other regularly, and it has seemed difficult to feel very confident that things in the race will change dramatically enough for a candidate other than Trump to have much of a realistic chance to win the nomination.

None of this means that I think anyone should give up the effort to secure a real conservative, or at least authentically Republican, nominee.  To the contrary, I hope that everyone who thinks this is important will do whatever they can to make it happen until the nomination is officially decided.

So, when I watched Thursday night’s debate in Texas, I was pleasantly  surprised to see Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz make a concerted effort to challenge Donald Trump.  Cruz stepped up the criticisms he’s been making the last few weeks, pointing out that Trump is hardly the best candidate for Republicans to send up against Hillary Clinton in the fall, since he has shared many of the same liberal positions and even donated to the Clinton Foundation.  Rubio, who hadn’t really taken Trump on very much before, went after him on a multitude of topics, pointing out that, while a major theme of Trump’s campaign has been toughness on immigration and bringing back American jobs, Trump had hired illegal workers to build his Trump Tower in the past and now brings in foreign workers on visas for his resort in Florida instead of hiring Americans.  He also brought up the complaints and lawsuits against Trump University and the bankruptcies Trump’s companies have been through.  On health care, Rubio kept pressing Trump to explain his plan, which not only demonstrated that Trump really doesn’t have one other than removing “lines around the states” to promote competition, but also allowed Rubio to zing Trump for repeating himself over and over again, something that hurt Rubio in New Hampshire and that Trump was still using against him.  On issue after issue, from Trump’s statement that he’d be “neutral” in the Israel/Palestinian conflict to his praise for the work of Planned Parenthood, Trump faced criticism from both sides, and at one point he even complained that the moderators were asking him too many questions, quite the opposite of most candidates who practically beg for more time to speak.  As an added bonus for me, the amount of attention Senators Rubio and Cruz gave to taking on Donald Trump also meant that they took somewhat of a break from their recent battles with each other, with only a couple of remarks pointing out conflicts between them.

The attempt to catch up to Trump did not end with the conclusion of the debate, either.  Since then, Cruz has kept making his points about the need for a conservative nominee to contrast with the Democrats and about Trump’s weak position in general election polling so far, and Rubio has cranked up his assault on Trump, not only attacking his record on illegal immigrants, bankruptcy, etc. and calling him a “con man” who isn’t really the person he’s presented to voters, but also sort of taking a page from Trump’s book to make fun of him for his Twitter misspellings, rattled behavior backstage at the debate, and pretty much anything else available.

As someone who has been passionately anti-Trump from the beginning, I am glad that his opponents aren’t going to just quietly give up and concede the nomination to him at this point and have instead stepped up their efforts against him and even tried some dramatically new tactics.  I do, of course, have to wonder with exasperation why everyone didn’t make some of these obvious points (Trump is a liberal with a spotty record even on things like business and immigration that are supposed to be his strengths) months and months ago, and why they didn't feel it was imperative until recently to make the case that he should not be the conservative Republican standard-bearer.  But it’s better now than never, so I can only hope that it’s not too late to stop Trump’s momentum and prevent him from winning the nomination.  I’m not getting my hopes up, though, and I do have a couple of new thoughts and concerns related to the events of the last few days.

Even though it seemed pretty clear to me that Donald Trump had a tough night in the last debate, who knows how it will be perceived by his supporters and the general public.  Trump did get in a couple of good lines and later claimed that polls showed him winning the debate.  (I don’t know if he made that up completely or if these polls were conducted at Trump campaign headquarters...)  As we’ve seen before, Trump’s fans are usually not swayed by anything said against or by him.  Some people may be hoping that making him appear as less of the dominant strong “alpha male” on the stage might start to weaken the devotion of his voters, but they may just dig in even more firmly when they see their guy under attack.  As for other viewers who may still be undecided or even newly tuning in to the campaign, will all of the criticism aimed at Trump have registered and made them unlikely to support him, or could it be possible that they might either have tuned out the unruly portions of the debate or have actually felt some sympathy for the candidate facing so much fire?  If I had to speculate, I would say that I wouldn’t count on the new flood of criticism aimed at Trump pulling more than a few casual supporters away from him, but I’d think we could hope a number of late-deciding voters in upcoming states who might otherwise have chosen to go with Trump will have reason to make a different selection instead.

Based on what happened at the debate, I’d offer a couple of suggestions to Donald Trump’s opponents for future events.  While it’s good that that they didn’t let his responses or interruptions distract them from making their intended points against him, I think they shouldn’t have allowed some of the things he said to go unanswered.  They could have briefly addressed these things and then continued with the case they intended to make.  For instance, Trump said multiple times that the other men on the stage had never hired anyone.  Surely this isn’t true, since they have obviously at least hired staff for their various campaigns.  Also, Trump claimed that Ted Cruz should apologize for criticizing Trump’s sister’s judicial rulings and suggested that Samuel Alito had agreed with her about one of the cases in question (by “signing the same bill!”)  I really wish Cruz would have begun his answer by, first, pointing out that judges don’t sign bills, but also briefly explaining why Trump’s sister’s opinion was objectionable and why Alito’s was not the same.  Also, while I’ve read some commentary from people who felt Wolf Blitzer cut the confrontational debate exchanges too short and thereby helped bail Trump out, I disagree.  Once there have been a couple of back and forth statements and rebuttals, it’s really best to move on to the next question.  Continued, often repetitive, arguing about the same point is not pretty or likely to influence viewers in a good way, I think, and the other participants on the stage do deserve some time to speak, as well.  Plus, it’s nice to have some substance in these debates, and it would be nice to have as much time to actually discuss policy and viewpoints as possible, which leads into my last related comment.  Both at the debates and in general, I’d advise those challenging Trump not to let him become their sole focus, but to also make sure they are prepared to highlight and defend their own messages every chance they get.  At one point, Senator Rubio was asked about the ongoing conflict between Apple and the FBI.  I’ve seen him discuss the issue in multiple interviews, and I thought the question that was posed to him mischaracterized what he’s said.  While the answer he gave was OK and reflected some newer developments in the case, I thought he could have done a clearer job of explaining what his position has been and is on the matter, and I wondered if perhaps he might have been so much in “anti-Trump” mode that he had a tough time switching his attention to something else.  For the campaigns as a whole going forward, it’s always important to make the case for one’s own candidacy.  Telling people why they shouldn’t vote for Donald Trump is important, but giving them reasons to vote for you is necessary, too.

As I’ve mentioned before, I am generally against inter-party negativity and attacks.  In the case of Donald Trump, however, it seems to me that someone whose views really make him more suited to being a Democrat or an Independent has chosen instead to seek the Republican nomination and has also been particularly destructive in doing so, attacking not only his opponents in this race, but also previous Republican candidates, former President George W. Bush, and positions widely held by Republicans.  For these reasons, I think that treating Trump more as one would a general-election opponent in order to prevent the defeat or destruction of the Republican Party and the conservative movement as we know them is justified.  However, that does not mean that we should completely take an “anything goes” approach in going after the frontrunner.  Attacking his record of unsound liberal positions, outrageous statements, and not always stellar business results is great, as are hammering home the points that he really doesn’t have detailed policies to offer the public or a very good understanding of many of the things he would need to deal with as president.  Anything at all relating to issues, policies, and record is fair game.  I realize that more measured criticism hasn’t worked to this point, and the use of more personal jabs and insults seems to draw greater media coverage that could help get the message out to a larger number of people, but I think considerable caution should be exercised in this regard.  After all, the unpleasant vulgar and insulting tendencies Trump has displayed throughout his campaign are part of the reason many of us consider Trump undeserving of the nomination or the presidency.  If others stoop to his level, and I’m not saying that they have gotten to that point so far, it would make it difficult to make that argument against him or to feel great about the alternative candidates.  Since Trump is the one who started taking the tone of the race in a petty and negative direction, I don’t think giving him a little of his own medicine is unfair, but I hope his opponents will be careful not to cross the line into becoming mini-Trumps themselves.

On that note, I’ll make a couple of comments specifically about Senator Rubio.  From what I’ve seen over the last few days, he’s been pretty effective at bashing Donald Trump while still seeming fairly good humored, but I’m a little worried about his new tactics anyway, for a couple of reasons.  Much of his material about Trump is amusing, and most of it is fairly harmless.  Especially since Trump likes to call people “dumb,” I don’t think it’s wrong to point out spelling mistakes in things he sends out on Twitter, and, while making fun of his tan is rather irrelevant, that itself is not a terrible thing to say.  Still, a few of the things Rubio has said at his recent rallies have made me rather uncomfortable, including an age-related remark and some comments inspired by Trump having recently said he’d like to have punched a protester in the face.  I can see criticizing Trump for having said something threatening like that, but Rubio’s comments instead seemed to mock Trump because he wouldn’t actually follow through on hitting someone.  I understand that the overall point of Rubio’s Trump monologue was to show that Trump is not really the guy he purports to be, so this was presumably intended as a way to say that Trump only talks tough, but I think it kind of implied that we should prefer it if our candidates actually did go around assaulting protesters, and I don’t think that’s good.  So, I just would advise Senator Rubio to really think about some of these things before including them in his public comments, and I do hope he’ll turn the personal insults down at least a few notches.  He may be aiming for the humor of a late-night talk show host rather than the mean-spirited bullying we’ve often seen from Donald Trump, but I think he may have started down a dangerous path.  (Please don’t give in to the Dark Side, Senator!)  Just last Thursday, one of his campaign e-mails reiterated that he wants to run a positive campaign with integrity, and I very much want to believe him, so I’d hate to see him do things he might regret in the long run or have a tough time explaining to his four lovely children.  Besides all of that, I wonder how voters will react to the “new” Marco Rubio.  The old, mainly positive and optimistic version pretty much won me over and seemed to be having some success gaining the support of late-deciding voters recently.  Will Rubio be able to add the votes of some people who appreciate the new aggressiveness he’s showing or who might otherwise have chosen Trump without sacrificing any of the support he’d have had before?  We’ll have to see, but he definitely should make sure to keep promoting his own policy ideas and good qualities in addition to pointing out the flaws and problematic positions of the candidate everyone is chasing.

Of course, I must note that Mr. Trump has not been sitting idly by the last few days.  In addition to hitting back at his opponents, he has also been collecting endorsements from prominent Republican elected officials, including the somewhat moderate New Jersey Governor and former presidential candidate Chris Christie and, depressingly, conservative Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama.  Before Christie left the race a few weeks ago, he had less than positive things to say about a Trump nomination, so it is interesting that he made such a quick decision to jump on board with Trump.  As for Sessions, I still cannot see how anyone who really believes in conservatism can prefer to support Trump, and his decision to publicly do so must have been like a dagger to the heart of Ted Cruz, who has heaped Sessions with praise during his campaign.  (I feel for you Senator Cruz.  You deserve better.)  Why are these politicians choosing to endorse Trump now?  It’s bad enough that there’s been talk that, rather than trying to help someone else win, some Republican officials have been resigning themselves to the notion of Trump becoming the party’s nominee, but now these endorsers are actually trying to speed up the process of making that terrible outcome a reality.  Why on earth do they want to do that??  Sigh...  People really do seem to have gone crazy.

Super Tuesday is almost here, and those primaries and caucuses will tell us a lot about the future of this race.  If Donald Trump dominates in most (or even -- shudder -- all) of the states, especially if he gets fairly large percentages of the votes, it may show us that he’s probably going to continue to do so and will be extremely difficult to stop from claiming the nomination.  If his percentages seem to be a little lower than in recent polls or in the last couple of states, maybe, just maybe, the ramped up movement to stop him will have had some effect, and we can hope that a continuation of the effort can eventually wear down his support to the point where another preferable candidate can defeat him.  I’m keeping my fingers crossed for some hint of good news on Tuesday night, but I still fear the worst.

Snap out of it, Republicans!

From the beginning, following the Republican presidential primary campaign closely has been a source of great concern.  While Iowa caucus day offered a glimmer of hope that there might still be a chance a real conservative (gasp!) politician could win the nomination in the end, it’s pretty much all been downhill since that night.  I really do fear that this race, and the general election to follow, will not end well.

I realize that, on the Democrat side, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are saying all kinds of ridiculous leftist things, and a large portion of their voters are embracing outright socialism.  There’s plenty of room for criticism there, but I don’t really expect anything better from the liberals/Democrats, so I’m not going to spend much time worrying about them now.   On the other hand, in the past I would have thought better of Republicans and conservatives, looking to them to behave much more sensibly and responsibly, but that is clearly not happening right now.  Instead, the voters in New Hampshire turned out in large numbers to award a dominant victory to the most unqualified, uncouth, and unconservative “Republican” candidate in my memory.  Donald Trump continually lowers the levels of civility and discourse in the campaign to the point where, considering his willingness to use profanity and repeat vulgar comments about  his opponents, perhaps stations covering debates or his other appearances might want to start airing them with a 5-second delay.  Of course, when not denying having said anything wrong in the first place, Trump now says that he’ll clean up his language from now on.  We’ll have to see how long that pledge actually lasts, because he did promise on national television that he wouldn't file a lawsuit questioning Ted Cruz’ eligibility for the presidency but has since threatened on multiple occasions to do just that.

Frustratingly, despite all of Trump’s flaws and all of the reasons he should not be the Republican nominee, most of the other candidates have not directed much of their attention to making a case against him.   This has allowed him to basically coast along as the front-running center of attention, largely able to define his own image through his rallies, media coverage, tweets, and so on.  There have been some exceptions, as Jeb Bush has been a consistent Trump critic, and, after a long time treating Trump with kid gloves, Ted Cruz finally began pointing out his deficiencies in the last few weeks, although he still seemed extremely reluctant to do so on the debate stage.  Perhaps some of Trump’s opponents want to minimize potential alienation of Trump’s supporters so that those people will be more likely to still vote for them if they win the nomination.  Or maybe they are afraid that Trump’s next move to test the boundaries of his political invulnerability might involve actually trying out on one of them his theory that he could shoot someone in public without losing votes.  (I’m joking about the last reason -- mostly.)  Some analysts have written that it hasn’t yet been in the interests of most of the candidates to take on Donald Trump, suggesting that they have had more reason to concern themselves with others against whom they might be more likely to gain an advantage or that it might even help them to have Trump defeating certain of their rivals at this point.  I’m no expert in running political campaigns, so perhaps this is correct in some practical way, but I find it difficult to believe that it is a good idea for anyone aiming higher than second place not to challenge the person who’s had big leads in the polls for many months.  The voting has already started, and it seems that the leader after just a few states often becomes very difficult to overcome.  Furthermore, I suppose I’m asking too much, but I think that these people seeking to be the leader of our country should understand that it is an urgent matter more important than their own personal goals to make sure that Donald Trump is not designated the supposed representative of Republican and conservative ideas, whether he would end up running a losing general election campaign that hands control of the presidency once again to Democrats, or if he would ultimately be doing irresponsible things in the White House himself if he should actually somehow win.

It is especially exasperating that, while Mr. Trump has been spared much of the criticism he would deserve, there has been no shortage of attacks among the other Republican candidates and the groups supporting them.  I did not appreciate all of the infighting that took place in the primaries in 2012, and I was afraid going into the race this time that it was likely to happen again.  I don’t see how it can be helpful to the Republican Party or the conservative movement for a field of generally successful and respected candidates to enter the presidential race only to spend the better part of a year having their accomplishments, opinions, actions, and character minimized, called into question, or attacked by those on their own side.  Isn’t it difficult enough for Republicans to win a Presidential election without helping the opposition by damaging the image of the eventual nominee in the eyes of the public during the primaries and handing the Democrats plenty of quotes and avenues of attack to build upon in their quest to defeat the Republican candidate?  Of course the primary competitors should point out differences of opinion they have about the ways to address various issues, and sometimes (see above) an opponent will merit outright criticism.  However, we seem to have an environment where, even amongst those who basically agree on most matters, harsh criticisms are flung over things large and small in great number, often becoming exaggerated, generalized negative characterizations of the candidates.  Defeating one’s rivals is paramount, even if it involves tearing down colleagues and friends, possibly with partial or misleading references to their records.  Oddly to me, it even seems that the willingness and ability to attack your opponents vigorously and well is seen by some to be a necessary qualification for a nominee, and someone considered lacking in this area is deemed too weak to be the party’s choice.

After the New Hampshire debate, during which an extended exchange with Chris Christie was seen to have resulted in a serious mistake and political damage for Marco Rubio, I was struck again by the absurdity of some of the conduct and thinking involved in the race.  I read that Christie was very pleased by what happened in the debate, as he felt he had accomplished his goal of taking down Rubio, to whom he referred as the “anointed one,” even though Rubio had only recently been gaining some momentum for and from his strong third-place finish in Iowa.  So, we have a situation where, rather than convincing everyone of the superior merits of his own candidacy or pointing out the reasons voters should choose a Republican in November (although he may believe he also did these things,) the acknowledged main aim of one (or more) of the candidates was to basically destroy the chances of a fellow Republican contender (in particular, one seen by many to have the potential to be a successful spokesperson for many conservative ideas)?  Well, if Republicans devote much of their energy to thinking of and treating each other this way, is it any wonder they aren’t more successful in defeating Democrats?  (By the way, am I the only one to think it might  have been nice for Christie to employ at least some of his tough prosecutorial debating tactics against Trump, instead??)  Governor Christie suspended his campaign after finishing sixth in New Hampshire, but, hey, at least Rubio had a very disappointing result there, too, right?  Quite a victory -- for Donald Trump’s chances, as the number and strength of his competitors dwindles, and for the Democrats who can just sit back and watch the Republicans do their dirty work for them.

As the focus of the race turned to the next primary in South Carolina, commentators pointed out that campaigning there has usually tended to get tougher and nastier, which is a pretty scary thought considering the way things have already been going.  With that in mind, I was quite apprehensive about watching the latest debate Saturday night.  Adding to the gloom of the week was the terrible news that the great conservative Justice Antonin Scalia had died, which is very sad and also throws the balance of the Supreme Court and the likely fate of laws on many issues into question going forward.  The importance of trying to make sure a conservative president, rather than Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders, is the one to fill this and future potential vacancies was discussed in the debate, and voters should (but, alas, may not) weigh this topic heavily when making their decisions.

I’m not sure what to think about the way the debate, as a whole, went this weekend.  I would say that an angry Donald Trump seemed to be the most prominent feature of the event, which got more and more out of hand as the evening went on.   At least Trump finally faced more challenges from the others this time, but many of these were prompted by Trump saying even more outrageous things than usual and being particularly insulting to his competitors, whom he kept interrupting, at times rather randomly.  In other words, he went so far that they really had no choice but to respond.  Among other gems, Trump again defended his use of private eminent domain, said that he thinks Planned Parenthood does some “wonderful things” for women’s  health, accused President George W. Bush of lying to “get us into” the war in Iraq while knowing that there were no weapons of mass destruction there, and, to top it all off, practically blamed Bush for the September 11 terrorist attacks that happened during his ”reign.”  (Does this choice of words indicate that Trump sees the presidency as some sort of kingship?)  None of this is really new, and Trump even took some of these forays into the world of Democrat Bush Derangement Syndrome in one of the early debates last year, but the volume and frequency of these rather un-Republican statements seemed to be increased.  The big question remains whether any of this will actually make a difference to the voters.  Will those supporting him be bothered by it, especially enough to make them switch to another candidate or at least stay home during the primaries?  So far, they’ve stuck with Trump no matter what, often even increasing their support when he says and does things that would seem beyond fatal for any other candidate.  I can only hope it will be different this time, when more people are expected to be paying serious attention, but I’m not holding my breath.

As for the other candidates, I thought that they did fairly well, especially since, in addition to answering questions, they had to deal with the loose cannon at center stage.  I thought that Jeb Bush was able to hold his own against Donald Trump while defending his brother and pointing out some of Trump’s troublesome past statements.  He also made a few other good points, but I’m not sure he’ll be able to make his way back into serious contention for the nomination.  I was a little worried for Marco Rubio, as many said he needed a “comeback” performance after the problems in the last debate, but I thought that he was very strong throughout the evening on many issues, including his contributions to the conversation in defense of President Bush regarding Iraq and 9/11.  Ted Cruz was also solid, and I do appreciate the way he is able to remain calm even when under fire on stage.  Unfortunately from my perspective, there were a couple of verbal skirmishes between Cruz and Rubio, and a few things were said that I wish were not.  The two Senators seem to me to be our strongest options right now, and I would prefer for their strengths, rather than any perceived shortcomings, to remain the focus, especially at these high-profile events.   John Kasich has seemed more energized the last couple of debates, and I’m sure his second-place finish in New Hampshire gave him a boost of confidence.  I’m not sure how his more moderate-sounding rhetoric, defense of his Medicaid expansion in Ohio, and expression of an intent to pursue comprehensive immigration reform early in his administration will play out in the campaign, though.  While they don’t make him my preferred candidate, I do have to sympathize with his call for a more civil Republican primary process.  It would certainly be nice if, as he suggested, the candidates could avoid attacking each other and just tell us what they are for , but that’s not likely to happen any time soon.

So, we have another week before the Republican primary in South Carolina.  The results there could be crucially important in determining the way the race turns out.  If Donald Trump, who has had a big lead in the polls there, has another victory, even after his latest displays of unsteady temper, crassness, and a tendency to think like liberals, it may be yet another sign that voters are determined to make the colossal mistake of nominating a completely unfit person for the presidency.  The other Republican campaigns should dial way back on attacking each other and focus on doing whatever they can to convince any persuadable voters not to go down that road.  Most importantly, I would implore the members of the public to come back to their senses and stop giving their support to someone so dangerously undeserving.  It’s not completely too late to turn around now, but that time is fast approaching.